Appeal of L. Candee & Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal of L. Candee & Co., 191 Pa. 644 (Pa. 1899)
43 A. 1093; 1899 Pa. LEXIS 868
Dean, Fell, McCollum, Mitchell, Stekrett

Appeal of L. Candee & Co.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The controlling facts of .this case and the questions of law *655arising thereon are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court helow, filed January 3, 1899, and need not be recited here.

Our consideration of the record has disclosed no error therein that would justify us in sustaining either of the six specifications of error. The subjects of complaint in the first and second are that the court erred “in overruling” the findings of the auditor recited therein respectively. For reasons given by the learned judge, we think he was clearly right in refusing to sustain either of said findings. We are also of opinion that he was right in refusing to adopt the auditor’s schedule of distribution, and in distributing the fund in the sheriff’s hands as specified in the decree from which this appeal was taken. The correctness of the learned judge’s action in each of the matters complained of by the appellants in their assignments of error, respectively, is so fully vindicated in the opinion referred to that we are quite content to affirm the decree for reasons therein given.

The decree is accordingly affirmed on his opinion, and the appeal is dismissed at appellant’s costs.

Reference

Full Case Name
Appeal of L. Candee & Company
Cited By
3 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Preference—Contingent liability—Debt not due—Fraud. A debtor may secure his friend against a contingent liability. A judgment confessed to secure an indorser on notes that are not due is not fraudulent for lack of consideration. Fraud—Contingent liability—Relationship. An actual debt or contingent liability existing, an auditor may not infer a fraudulent transaction from the mere fact of preference; nor is the relationship of the creditor a badge or evidence of fraud. Creditor's right to secure preference—Fraud. A creditor has a legal right to influence his debtor to give him a preference ; such creditor likewise has a right to be secretive and energetic in order that other creditors may not forestall him. Fraud—Preference—Judgment—Relationship. A partner may without fraud confess a judgment in the firm name to secure another firm against a contingent liability as indorser on paper of the first partnership, nor does the fact that one member of the creditor firm was a brother of a member of the debtor firm tend to invalidate the judgment.